Quote:
Originally Posted by JPablo
But the translation would be a noun, (like "ignition) not really an infinitive.
Am I missing something?
|
In the example I cite, I would have expected "encender" not "encendido" which is why I mentioned the infinitive. The equivalent English has a variety of different forms, for example "for lighting a fire" (present participle) or "for the lighting of a fire" (gerund).
I just wondered whether there is some kind of rule which explains why a past participle is used which appears to be totally illogical.
I think I'm right in saying that Ancient Greek would have either a future infinitive or a future participle, both of which convey an intention that something will happen. This is logical, and it bothers me when it is not.